Tarun Gulati v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi High Court · 09 Aug 2023 · 2023:DHC:5837-DB
Vibhu Bakhru; Amit Mahajan
W.P.(C) 11229/2022
2023:DHC:5837-DB
administrative petition_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court held that provisional attachment orders under the CGST Act lapse after one year unless extended, and directed the lifting of attachment on the petitioner’s bank accounts as the last order had expired.

Full Text
Translation output
W.P.(C) 11229/2022
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 09.08.2023
W.P.(C) 11229/2022
TARUN GULATI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Vineet Bhatia and Mr Aamnaya Jagannath, Advs.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, SSC with Mr. Vivek Gurnani & Ms. Sejal Aneja, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN VIBHU BAKHRU, J.
JUDGMENT

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning orders dated 13.08.2019, 21.07.2020 & 04.08.2021 whereby the petitioner’s bank accounts were attached. It is pointed out that in addition to the orders mentioned in the present petition, the Commissioner of CGST, Belapur has passed another order dated 05.08.2022, which in effect had further extended the period of provisional attachment. One year has passed from the date of passing of the said order. Thus, in terms of Section 83(2) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter ‘the CGST Act’), the said order is no longer operative.

2. Mr. Hossain learned counsel appearing from the respondents, states that the Commissionerate at Belapur has not passed any further orders after 05.08.2022.

3. A tabular statement indicating the details of the orders of provisional attachment passed in respect of the petitioner’s bank accounts is set out below:-

S. N O. Bank Account Details 1ST Provisional Attachmen t Order Date: 13.08.2019 2nd Attachment Order Date: 21.07.2019 3rd Order Date: 04.08.2021 4th Order Date: 05.08.2022

1. IndusInd Bank Ltd. Indirapura m, Ghaziabad Branch Account No.159910 Order Reference No.V/AE/B el12- 86/Gr.A/Gu lati/2019- 20/1740 Order Reference No.V/AE/Bel /Gr.E/12- 27/Ritesh Creations/En q/19-20/192 Order Reference /Gr.E/12- 27/Ritesh q/ 19-20/3866 Order Reference /Gr.E/12- 27/Ritesh q/19-20/2457

2. HDFC Bank Ltd. Patparganj Industrial Area Account No.284015 Order Reference No.V/AE/B el12- 86/Gr.A/Gu lati/2019- 20/1741 Order Reference /Gr.E/12- 27/Ritesh q/19-20/193 Order Reference /Gr.E/12- 27/Ritesh q/19-20/3864 Order Reference /Gr.E/12- 27/Ritesh q/19-20/2456

4. Since the order dated 05.08.2022 – which was the last provisional order passed by the Commissionerate at Belapur – is no longer operative, the present petition has been rendered academic.

5. In the given circumstances, we consider it apposite to dispose of the present petition by directing the concerned bank (respondent no.3) to not interdict the operation of the petitioner’s bank account on account of any of the orders of provisional attachment that are included in the tabular statement set out above.

6. The petition is disposed of the in the aforesaid directions.

7. It is clarified that if any further order of provisional attachment is passed, the petitioner is not precluded to assail the same.

8. All rights and contentions of the parties are reserved.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J AMIT MAHAJAN, J AUGUST 9, 2023 RAWAL